What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5244931 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5244931?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244931?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12322763-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5244931 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5244931?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244931?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12322763-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 31, 124 Taylors Road, Mount Albert, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5244931 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5244931 — net $3,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund - not lodged	$3,000.00	Bond refund - not lodged
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,027.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants have applied for refund of the bond and compensation following the end of the tenancy. The $3,000 bond was paid but not lodged with the Bond Centre.

Who should refund the bond?

The tenancy agreement was signed by Metro NZ Property Management Ltd (Metro) and the tenants. Ms Lambdin is named on the tenancy agreement as the landlord.

The tenants filed their application against Metro as well. That company is in liquidation. Section 248 of the Companies Act 1993 provides that a claim cannot be brought against a company in liquidation without the consent of the liquidator or the High Court. Accordingly I have removed Metro as a party to this application. The parties may be able to bring claims against Metro but they would need to get legal advice about this.

Ms Lambdin submitted that she was not responsible for the actions of Metro because she had no idea the bond had not been lodged. As I explained in the hearing Ms Lambdin is responsible because of the law of agency. The primary common law rule is that an agent (Metro) who merely acts as an intermediary for a principal (Ms Lambdin) is not a party to the contract between the principal and the other party (the tenants). And, a principal will always be responsible for the actions of its agent, especially where the agent has the express authority to act for them.

Ms Lambdin and Metro signed a property management agreement appointing Metro as an agent. Metro acted with her knowledge when the tenancy agreement was signed and when the tenants paid the bond money to Metro. The tenancy agreement names Ms Lambdin as the principal and describes Metro as an agent. I find that an order can be made that Ms Lambdin refunds the bond money to the tenants.

Ms Lambdin submitted that the tenants should have double checked the bond was lodged when they did not receive an acknowledgement from the Bond Centre. However section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that it is the landlord’s responsibility to send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. If anything, it was up to her to check.

The fact the house was sold last year does not relieve Ms Lambdin of her responsibility either because she was the landlord when the tenancy agreement was signed, when the bond was paid, and during the 23 working days when Metro should have lodged the bond.

Should I order compensation?

The tenants have applied for compensation as well because of the additional stress of chasing their bond while moving cities. They said there was also additional stress when the house was sold last year. It seems likely that there has been additional stress for the tenants but the claim for compensation is vague and any concerns the tenants had about the sales process should have been raised as an issue at the time. This claim is dismissed. Other orders

The tenants have made an application for suppression which is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when bonds are not lodged. See section 95A RTA.

An order is made for reimbursement of the filing fee because the tenants are the most successful party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5244931 — net $3,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund - not lodged	$3,000.00	Bond refund - not lodged
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Wilma Lambin must pay [The tenant/s] $3,027.00 immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond and compensation following the end of the tenancy. The $3,000 bond was paid but not lodged with the Bond Centre.

Who should refund the bond?

The tenancy agreement was signed by Metro NZ Property Management Ltd (Metro) and the tenants. Ms Lambdin is named on the tenancy agreement as the landlord.
The tenants filed their application against Metro as well. That company is in liquidation. Section 248 of the Companies Act 1993 provides that a claim cannot be brought against a company in liquidation without the consent of the liquidator or the High Court. Accordingly I have removed Metro as a party to this application. The parties may be able to bring claims against Metro but they would need to get legal advice about this.
Ms Lambdin submitted that she was not responsible for the actions of Metro because she had no idea the bond had not been lodged. As I explained in the hearing Ms Lambdin is responsible because of the law of agency. The primary common law rule is that an agent (Metro) who merely acts as an intermediary for a principal (Ms Lambdin) is not a party to the contract between the principal and the other party (the tenants). And, a principal will always be responsible for the actions of its agent, especially where the agent has the express authority to act for them.
Ms Lambdin and Metro signed a property management agreement appointing Metro as an agent. Metro acted with her knowledge when the tenancy agreement was signed and when the tenants paid the bond money to Metro. The tenancy agreement names Ms Lambdin as the principal and describes Metro as an agent. I find that an order can be made that Ms Lambdin refunds the bond money to the tenants.
Ms Lambdin submitted that the tenants should have double checked the bond was lodged when they did not receive an acknowledgement from the Bond Centre. However section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that it is the landlord’s responsibility to send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. If anything, it was up to her to check.
The fact the house was sold last year does not relieve Ms Lambdin of her responsibility either because she was the landlord when the tenancy agreement was signed, when the bond was paid, and during the 23 working days when Metro should have lodged the bond.

Should I order compensation?

The tenants have applied for compensation as well because of the additional stress of chasing their bond while moving cities. They said there was also additional stress when the house was sold last year. It seems likely that there has been additional stress for the tenants but the claim for compensation is vague and any concerns the tenants had about the sales process should have been raised as an issue at the time. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
The tenants have made an application for suppression which is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when bonds are not lodged. See section 95A RTA.
An order is made for reimbursement of the filing fee because the tenants are the most successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244931 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 31, 124 Taylors Road, Mount Albert, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244931 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 31, 124 Taylors Road, Mount Albert, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Who should refund the bond?

Should I order compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Who should refund the bond?

Should I order compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions